Oregon Court of Appeals

Land Use: Unless the Plan District’s code expressly precludes density transfers between sites in multi-dwelling zones, the density transfer will be allowed to preserve development opportunities for new housing and to reduce development pressure on environmentally sensitive sites.

Criminal Procedure: To raise a timely double jeopardy claim, the defendant must raise the claim before the second trials starts if all of the facts that are required to prove double jeopardy are well-known.

Criminal Procedure: A prosecutor can obtain recordings of inmate conversations from the Department of Corrections for discovery and must disclose the recordings to the defendant if the recordings are in the prosecutor's possession or control.

Appellate Procedure: To preserve an argument, the party must explain the objection to the trial court specific enough to ensure that the court can identify an alleged error, consider the error, and correct the error if warranted.

Criminal Procedure: A police officer, who has an objectively reasonable belief that an animal has suffered, or will imminently suffer a serious physical injury or death, is justified in conducting a search or seizure without a warrant to provide immediate aid or assistance.

Civil Commitment: A mental commitment order cannot be based on speculation that a person cannot care for their own personal needs, and that a person's needs can be met through their own resources or through the help of another.

Intellectual Property

Patents: PATENTS: PERMANENT INJUNCTION: The detrimental effect of restricting innovation combined with the public’s general interest in protecting inventive technology property outweighs any public interest in purchasing cheaper products from an infringing party.

Patents: Patent Infringement: The obviousness-type double patenting doctrine prohibits a patent owner from extending their exclusive use right through a later-expiring patent that is not patentably distinct from the earlier-expiring patent.

Trademarks: When a private group used a State's registered service mark to criticize the Governor of the State, the Court determined that the use of the mark would not confuse viewers as to the owner of the mark.